JUDGMENT : Rahul Bharti, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 2. The facts of this case wrap up a legal issue which is that upon acquittal of the petitioner in an appeal from a conviction in a criminal case, should the reinstatement in service of the petitioner have taken place from and with retrospective date and effects or from the prospective date and effects. The petitioner claims retrospect and the respondent No. 1 has granted prospect and that has created the text and context of the present writ petition. 3. By the aforesaid reference, the facts of the case have a very concise frame. The petitioner was in service of the respondent No. 1 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, serving as an assistant in the clerical cadre on permanent basis. In the year, 2004, the petitioner came to be booked by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch, Jammu in a case for an act of accepting and receiving illegal gratification of an amount of Rs.1,500/-. The petitioner was booked on the basis of a trap set up by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at the instance of a complainant namely Layaqat Ali. The trap was carried out not at the premises of the office/workplace of the petitioner in the employment/service of the respondent No. 1. The arrest of the petitioner had taken place followed by the investigation and presentation of a criminal challan under section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 read with Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code. 4. The petitioner was arraigned and put to charge on 20.05.2004 by the trial Court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Jammu. The petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced vide judgement dated 29.12.2007 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 and imprisonment for a period of two years and fine under section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code with both sentences to run concurrently. 5. 2006 and imprisonment for a period of two years and fine under section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code with both sentences to run concurrently. 5. Following the petitioner's conviction in said criminal case, the respondent No. 1 had come to put the petitioner to show cause vide a notice dated 30.01.2008 which had resulted in an order of dismissal dated 19.03.2008 of the petitioner from the service of respondent No. 1. Thus, from 19.03.2008 the petitioner ceased to be in employment/service of the respondent No. 1 and the sole cause which led to dismissal of the petitioner was his conviction in said criminal case of receiving illegal gratification. 6. The petitioner, in order to vindicate his Innocence In the case, came to prefer an appeal CRA No. 31/2007 before the then High Court of Jammu and Kashmir (presently being the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh) against his conviction. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir came to set aside the judgment of the conviction against the petitioner vide its judgement dated 09.01.2018 thereby acquitting the petitioner of the charges levelled against him resulting in restoring the personal liberty of the petitioner from the imprisonment as well. 7. Upon earning his acquittal, the petitioner registered his claim vide letter dated 10.04.2018 before the respondent No. 1 for his reinstatement. Since the basis upon which the respondent No. 1 had effected the dismissal of the petitioner from the service was the conviction of the petitioner by the criminal court, so the respondent No. 1 was left with no other option except to effect the reinstatement of the petitioner in the service and for that an order of reinstatement came to be passed on 09.07.2018 by the Chief Regional Manager as being the appointing authority on behalf of respondent No. 1. 8. In terms of this reinstatement order, the petitioner got reinstated with immediate effect however without any benefit for the period from the date of his dismissal from service coming into effect i.e. 24.03.2008 till the date of his joining the service on his reinstatement, which interviewing period was referred as out of service period. Consequent upon his reinstatement, the petitioner came to submit his Joining on 11.07.2018 to be posted in DO III, Jammu and in the course of time the petitioner has now even been promoted to the higher grade. Consequent upon his reinstatement, the petitioner came to submit his Joining on 11.07.2018 to be posted in DO III, Jammu and in the course of time the petitioner has now even been promoted to the higher grade. The petitioner is still in service of the respondent No. 1. 9. The petitioner feels aggrieved that he has been subjected to deprivation of the benefits which otherwise were due to be restored to him for the period from 24.03.2008 till 08.07.2018 and also with respect to the actual date of his reinstatement, which as per the petitioner ought to have been 24.03.2008 the day on which he was dismissed. The petitioner has, thus, claimed all the consequential benefits and the writ petition is addressed for the said end relief. 10. The respondents in their reply/objections to the writ petition have sought to defend their decision with respect to the date of reinstatement of the petitioner and the effects thereof as granted. The respondents have characterized the criminal case registered against the petitioner as the one which was registered at the behest of a private person and the rest had followed the course. The process of dismissal of the petitioner from his service by the respondent No. 1 is sourced to the order dated 19.03.2008 following the judgement of conviction dated 19.12.2007 against the petitioner. In the order of reinstatement dated 09.07.2018 the authority issuing the same discounted the period, from 24.03.2008 till the date of joining of the petitioner upon his reinstatement in the service, for any service related benefits. The respondents in their objections are meaning to take a very simple position that for the period when the petitioner was suffering conviction, said period was not to earn and entitle any service status and benefit in his favour even though the petitioner got a final acquittal from the court of law and the reinstatement in the service from the employer. 11. The moot point in this case is how to view the prosecution of the petitioner at the hands of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case which resulted in his conviction and then in his final acquittal. There are two points of perspective generated out of the aforesaid question. 11. The moot point in this case is how to view the prosecution of the petitioner at the hands of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case which resulted in his conviction and then in his final acquittal. There are two points of perspective generated out of the aforesaid question. One perspective is that the employer i.e. National Insurance Company Limited had nothing to do with the implication of the petitioner in the criminal case and as such the National Insurance Company Limited cannot be said to be privy to the entire course of events and as such was not to bear the burden of granting of the service benefits to the petitioner during the course of time when the petitioner remain engaged with the courts of law in the context of his conviction till his acquittal. The other point of perspective is that of the petitioner that he was booked by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) not in his personal capacity of having committed an offence under the Penal Code vis-a-vis the complainant but in his capacity as the public servant in the employment of the National Insurance Company Limited and by reference to his said position of demanding and receiving of illegal gratification the petitioner was framed in the case and thus it was the employer's tacit consent and assent which sustained the criminal prosecution of the petitioner. 12. Though at first blush the stand point of the respondent No. 1 National Insurance Company Limited seems to be inviting readily acceptance that the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited had nothing to do with the implication of the petitioner in the criminal case but upon closer examination of the situation the position emerges otherwise that but for the petitioner being in the service of the respondent No. 1 National Insurance Company Limited, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) would not have ventured to book the petitioner for the alleged offence of demanding and receiving illegal gratification leading to the setting up of the trap by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and consequent prosecution of the case against the petitioner in the court of law. Thus, the prosecution of the petitioner at the hands of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the eyes of law is to be reckoned at the behest and with the sanction of the respondent No. 1 National Insurance Company Limited as otherwise the respondent No.1 National Insurance Company Limited could have easily excused the petitioner from the implication in the said criminal case by refusing its own sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner at the hands of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the criminal case on the basis that the entire alleged event of demanding and accepting of the alleged illegal gratification had taken place outside the office premises and beyond the office time related to the petitioner and as such the case was not relatable to the public servant status of the petitioner. However the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited opted not to lend its reservation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) implicating the petitioner in the criminal case only on the basis of his status as being the employee of the respondent No. 1. Thus, it was the respondent No. 1 who, in essence, sanctioned and allowed the prosecution of the petitioner for his alleged culpable act as a public servant in service of the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited. Thus, the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited cannot, in the face of the clean acquittal of the petitioner from the guilt charged against him, excuse itself from bearing the burden of affording the petitioner not only the reinstatement w.e.f. 24.03.2008 but also of all the consequent service claims, benefits and dues during the period from 24.03.2008 to 08.07.2018. 13. The respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Ltd., is drawing heavy reliance from the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in case Union of India v. Jaipal Singh ( AIR 2004 SC 1005 ) in which the issue of re-instatement of an employee in service/employment, upon his appellate stage acquittal in a criminal case conviction, with or without back wages is examined. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case referred supra has registered its concurrence with view taken in a precedent judgment 1996 (11) SCC 603 Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar & Anr. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case referred supra has registered its concurrence with view taken in a precedent judgment 1996 (11) SCC 603 Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar & Anr. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India posed a question about entitlement of an employee to back wages upon his reinstatement from the perspective that in case if it is the employee's conduct of involving himself in the crime which is taken into account for his not being in service of the employer then only reinstatement has to take effect simpliciter as termination of his service takes place on the basis of conviction as may be provided under the statutory rules applicable to the situation and as such question of back wages may not arise as the employee may get himself involved in a crime to be convicted but later acquitted but by his conduct and act disables himself/herself from rendering the service to his/her employer on account of conviction and incarceration which may not entitle to expect his reinstatement with payment of back wages. However the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has registered a one liner caveat in its said judgment 1996 (11) SCC 603 which is "Each case requires to be considered in its own backdrop". 14. Now, when the facts of the present case are examined and considered, the legal situation self emerges that the implication of the petitioner in the offence was not by his personal reference but by his reference to being a public servant otherwise the CBI would have not even an iota of authority to book the petitioner for said trap generated offence of demanding and receiving illegal gratification which in common parlance is known as corruption case. The public servant status of the petitioner was related to being in the employment of the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited and that fact dominated the decision of the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited to effect dismissal of the petitioner from the service. 15. The public servant status of the petitioner was related to being in the employment of the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited and that fact dominated the decision of the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited to effect dismissal of the petitioner from the service. 15. Thus, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed, in AIR 2004 SC 1005 UOI v. Jaipal Singh, that different consideration may arise if the prosecution arises at the behest of the Department and that consideration does arise in this case as the petitioner's prosecution in the case leading to his conviction at first and then acquittal was related only by reference to his status as the public servant by his employment with the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited. 16. Thus, seen from a full perspective, the petitioner's reinstatement in service by the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited ought to have taken place w.e.f. 24.03.2008 along with grant of all corresponding service claims, benefits and duos from said date lasting upto date of his rejoining on 11.07.2018. The decision on the part of the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited in the Petitioner's Reinstatement Order dated 09.07.2018 in reinstatement of the petitioner without any benefit for the period from 24.03.2008 till the date of rejoining of the petitioner is held to be unreasonable and inequitable compounding the injury of the petitioner which at first Instance was in undergoing ordeal of a trial In a criminal case leading to his conviction and then acquittal in the course of which suffering loss of service and then getting reinstatement in service but without earning him the intervening service claims and benefits the loss of which he suffered because of a case which ultimately failed before the final court of law. 17. To leave the petitioner to have his reinstatement without all retrospective benefits and effects would be as if the petitioner has been taken in employment by the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited de novo. The petitioner earned vindication of his honour from the criminal charge by facing and suffering the due process of law and consequently the petitioner must also earn restoration of his service status without suffering any deprivation. 18. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. The petitioner earned vindication of his honour from the criminal charge by facing and suffering the due process of law and consequently the petitioner must also earn restoration of his service status without suffering any deprivation. 18. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. The petitioner is held entitled to his reinstatement with retrospective date and effects in the form of salary and other incidental service benefits from 24.03.2008 till the actual date of rejoining. 19. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of as being allowed.